6 ms·

It should hopefully go without saying that as shocking as this is, this is not the legally binding version of the Constitution. Nor is it the only version host

It should hopefully go without saying that as shocking as this is, this is not the legally binding version of the Constitution. Nor is it the only version hosted on a US Government website. NARA's, for example, still seems complete: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... So is the Senate's: https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-...

altruios 1y ago
[flagged]
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  Funny how "dog whistle" seems outdated. It's now more like a bullhorn.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  This is not that big, stop being so dramatic. The very first line removed is the authorization for maintaining a Navy, the United States's most significant military asset. This is obviously a mistake. An embarrassing one, but not a conspiracy. None of this carries any legal weight whatsoever, this is a website! Our government predates the web by a couple hundred years! Imagine if the laws of our country hung on the thread of a single line of PHP.
  - LeafItAlone 1y ago
    > Imagine if the laws of our country hung on the thread of a single line of PHP. I suspect we’ll be finding out in the next 3.5 years if they have even that strength.
- saalweachter 1y ago
  Eh, I have a hard time looking at the diff and thinking it's anything but someone screwing up a page update. Some of the dropped lines are interesting, but things like the "let's have a navy" don't make any sense to drop, and removing the lines preventing States from minting their own currency, enter into treaties, and raise armies are way more favorable to Blue States at the moment. Also, if someone was going through the Constitution cutting out parts they don't like, they'd be starting with a few notable amendments, not this section.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
I don't think it's shocking at all. It's a fuckup, so what? All of the conspiracy theories and online discourse around this just show how stupid most conspiracy theories are and how braindead so much online discourse has become. Just look at the Reddit thread on this, which currently has nearly 50k votes, and one of the top comments is "Treasonous", https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_of_the_united_states_website_has/ https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_o.... Like I wholeheartedly believe that the current administration may want to (and, IMO, already has) subvert large parts of the Constitution, but deleting a few paragraphs from the Library of Congress' online version of the Constitution is not how they're going to go about it. What, do people not think there are, I don't know, a couple million copies of the Constitution out and about? Do they think some judge is just going to open the Library of Congress website and go "Oh well, I know that part was there yesterday, but it's gone now so I guess we can't have a navy anymore." It's all just so dumb.
- estearum 1y ago
  No one is supposing this is the way they'll do it, only that this could be a way they do it. As you've already suggested, they're also already doing it other ways. There's a reason authoritarian regimes are known for destroying and modifying records. It's because they often destroy and modify records.
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    > only that this could be a way they do it. No, it couldn't. Again, just erasing sections of laws from websites is not how it is done. It's dumb to conflate what authoritarian regimes do to memory hole historical events (which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do) with just thinking "Yep, we'll just delete this law from the website and then we'll be good." This was obviously a clerical/administrative screw up, if only because the consequences are so clearly benign.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign.

altruios 1y ago

[flagged]

gchamonlive 1y ago
Funny how "dog whistle" seems outdated. It's now more like a bullhorn.
chrisco255 1y ago
This is not that big, stop being so dramatic. The very first line removed is the authorization for maintaining a Navy, the United States's most significant military asset. This is obviously a mistake. An embarrassing one, but not a conspiracy. None of this carries any legal weight whatsoever, this is a website! Our government predates the web by a couple hundred years! Imagine if the laws of our country hung on the thread of a single line of PHP.
- LeafItAlone 1y ago
  > Imagine if the laws of our country hung on the thread of a single line of PHP. I suspect we’ll be finding out in the next 3.5 years if they have even that strength.
saalweachter 1y ago
Eh, I have a hard time looking at the diff and thinking it's anything but someone screwing up a page update. Some of the dropped lines are interesting, but things like the "let's have a navy" don't make any sense to drop, and removing the lines preventing States from minting their own currency, enter into treaties, and raise armies are way more favorable to Blue States at the moment. Also, if someone was going through the Constitution cutting out parts they don't like, they'd be starting with a few notable amendments, not this section.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

I don't think it's shocking at all. It's a fuckup, so what? All of the conspiracy theories and online discourse around this just show how stupid most conspiracy theories are and how braindead so much online discourse has become. Just look at the Reddit thread on this, which currently has nearly 50k votes, and one of the top comments is "Treasonous", https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_of_the_united_states_website_has/ https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_o.... Like I wholeheartedly believe that the current administration may want to (and, IMO, already has) subvert large parts of the Constitution, but deleting a few paragraphs from the Library of Congress' online version of the Constitution is not how they're going to go about it. What, do people not think there are, I don't know, a couple million copies of the Constitution out and about? Do they think some judge is just going to open the Library of Congress website and go "Oh well, I know that part was there yesterday, but it's gone now so I guess we can't have a navy anymore." It's all just so dumb.

estearum 1y ago
No one is supposing this is the way they'll do it, only that this could be a way they do it. As you've already suggested, they're also already doing it other ways. There's a reason authoritarian regimes are known for destroying and modifying records. It's because they often destroy and modify records.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > only that this could be a way they do it. No, it couldn't. Again, just erasing sections of laws from websites is not how it is done. It's dumb to conflate what authoritarian regimes do to memory hole historical events (which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do) with just thinking "Yep, we'll just delete this law from the website and then we'll be good." This was obviously a clerical/administrative screw up, if only because the consequences are so clearly benign.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign.